Maryland lawmaker defends mandatory helmet bill

The Post has an article on the cold reception that the mandatory helmet bill in Maryland has received from cyclists.

“It is really an awkward position and one that is difficult to explain because we are fully supportive of the use of helmets and encourage everyone who rides a bike to use one,” said Shane Farthing, executive director of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association. “We’re just not convinced that a mandatory helmet law is going to improve safety. In fact, we fear that it will undermine overall ridership by limiting the safety-in-numbers effect, [that it will] actually have the opposite impact.”

Ashley Halsey III wrote the article and I know that he's a much stronger proponent of helmets than most, and a little of his bias is coming through.

This was not a happy decision for cycling groups deeply entrenched in the karma of safety first, because they all agree that strapping your head into a plastic foam cocoon is the single best protection against going kerplunk.

I'm not sure it they agree that it is the single best protection, but then I'd have to know what he means by "going kerplunk." There are certainly more important things to do if safety is your goal and I suspect most bike advocacy groups agree. He also pulls out controversial numbers such as

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says helmet use reduces head injuries by 80 percent.

without noting the flaws in that data. But then he is quoting government sources, so it's hard to be too critical there.

Anyway, he interviews the bill's sponsor who says.

The bill’s lead sponsor, Del. Maggie L. McIntosh (D-Baltimore), said there once were warnings that requiring motorcycle helmets would deter people from riding, but “you still see plenty of motorcycles on the road.”

Well, I still see plenty of smokers, but it does seem that efforts in the past have deterred smoking. So is motorcycling down in places where helmet laws have been instituted? And is that even an apt comparison when the unique situation of bike sharing is brought into consideration?

An avid cyclist herself, McIntosh said she has been surprised at the opposition to the bill by bike groups.

She shouldn't be. Not anymore than she would be surprised to find opposition to a mandatory condom use for recreational sex bill among sexually active adults. Condoms are a really good idea too - perhaps a better one, but we don't mandate their use.

“I’ve had a whole lot of people walk up to me and say they’re shocked at the reaction of their bike clubs, and I think a lot of delegates are shocked, too,” she said. “If the only reason you’re riding a bicycle is to feel the wind in your hair, you should take up another sport.”

Is that what people are saying to her? I've heard no one say anything like that. Not WABA. Not anyone. Is she even listening to people who oppose it? If you can't explain the opposition's actual position, then how can you say it isn't valid? That line is so arrogant and dismissive. If you follow the link to her name, you can find her email address and let her know that "feeling the wind in your hair" isn't the issue. If she's considered the real concerns (reduction in bike use, freedom to make our own choices, effectiveness of other efforts etc...) and the research behind it and still thinks it's a good idea, I can respect that. I disagree, but I respect that. But it sounds like she thought it was a good idea, without much research and outreach (if she'd talked to bike groups first, she wouldn't be surprised by their reaction would she?), and now is offended than anyone disagrees with her. It's a bit ironic that she's a leader of the abortion rights faction and doesn't get that people want the right to determine what is best for themselves. Not to equate the two, but the issues - and the concept of personal freedom they deal with - are at least within earshot of each other.

Chris Eatough, who bikes from his home in Silver Spring to his job as manager of Arlington’s bike program, said a helmet law would be a “huge obstacle to the bike movement in Maryland.”

[Farthing] worries that officials might become skittish about bikeshare expansion for fear that they would be legally liable if riders violated a helmet law.

“Is there some risk-averse administrator who won’t go forward with bike sharing until they have addressed the need to provide helmets?” he said.

And this

“It’s also going to require a large underclass currently relying on budget [bikes] ridden on the sidewalk, into targets for ticketing and police harassment, unless they also buy helmets,” Meller said.

It used to be that website that collected recently decided cases showed up in my searches when they mentioned a bike or bicycle. 9 out 10 of them dealt with some drug dealer who was searched by police after they committed some minor bicycle infraction. About half of those were riding without a helmet. That's not definitive proof that helmet laws are a tool in a profiling/stop and frisk kind of process, but it certainly doesn't smell right.

The decrease in ridership is by design. If you have more cyclists, you will have to build more cycling infrastructure eventually. You can't outlaw bikes, but you can pass laws that have been shown repeatedly to decrease cycling, and then you don't have to build more bike lanes, and you keep getting your state gas tax money for roads. People who ride bikes don't pay gas tax, and aren't part of congestion that allows localities to get more federal money for roads. In comparison, bike infrastructure is a drop in the bucket.

I think if this law passes, CaBi expansion into MD is dead in the water and Baltimore's chances of implementing a bikeshare system drop to zero. From everything I've read, mandatory helmet laws have been one of the biggest obstacles for bikesharing systems in jurisdictions that actually want to implement such systems. Vancouver is dealing with this right now, and it seems likely they're going to dump their helmet law. Melbourne implemented a helmet law after setting up bikesharing and it tanked the entire system.

Seems like the logical extension of this argument is to require seatbelts on public buses. Sure, it probably makes you safer, but you were never in much danger to begin with.

The motorcycle helmet laws may have been derived less from concern about safety than from the large unfunded medical costs from uninsured motorcyclists with massive head injuries. As much about reducing uncompensated health costs to hospitals than concern for safety, in my opinion.

If we were concerned for motorcyclists' safety, we'd probably put restrictions on motorbikes that can go from zero to 120mph in 8 seconds!

“If the only reason you’re riding a bicycle is to feel the wind in your hair, you should take up another sport.”

Coming at this from another angle, this is just one little hint about the attitude of many people in government and those who supports its interminable expansion of power. Hey delegate, free citizens really shouldn't be required to explain why they want to ride a bike without a helmet, of all things. If I support that because I like how the wind feels in my hair, who on earth are you to tell me I need to "find another sport"? If you think you should have that kind of power over me, you should take up another occupation.

I haven't been swayed by a lot of the sort of generically liberal outlooks you find in this blog and in the biking community generally, but the one issue where I've changed my mind, based at the outset by discussions here, is the utility of helmets--it's a much more mixed picture than I initially assumed, even though I virtually always wear one. As for the net outcome of mandatory helmet laws, it really is one of those Freakanomics effects that hurts much more than it helps.

You know, about the only time I don't wear a helmet is when I tool around the neighborhood, especially in the first joy of spring. Lucky for me I bike mainly in Virginia and DC, where wind in your hair is not about to become a controlled substance.

I don't see any subtle plan to suppress biking, however. It's what I think Wash Cycle guy said above--the delegate didn't think it through and is surprised and defensive about the response. Human nature.

“If the only reason you’re riding a bicycle is to feel the wind in your hair, you should take up another sport.”

The last part of the quote bothers me a bit. I am wondering if the sponsor of this bill simply sees bicycling only as a sport. Many sports have protective gear that is required, so why not bicycling?

A lot of us here, as well as WABA and others, recognize that it can be a sport, but also just basic transportation. Yes you would be wise to wear a helmet in a bike race. A short trip to the post office at the end of the street? Maybe not necessary or worth criminalizing for lack of full set of protective gear. Two completely different levels of risk. If someone only sees this as a sport, they will only see that risk.

@twk - Not just wise - Most cycling "sporting" events - be they races, charity rides, or even club rides - require helmets be worn. I've yet to sign up for an event where it doesn't say on the entry somewhere "Helmets must be worn."

As for a law stopping cyclists' riding - I think the impact would be greater in that some folks would not *start* riding if required by law to don a helmet. (I have no #'s to back that up - just my humble opinion). It's just one more piece of equipment to buy in a pricey activity anyway.

On Eric's point on contributory negligence, note that motorcyclists get the following while we do not:
§ 21-1306.1.(e) Failure to use required headgear; evidence; civil actions. --
(1) The failure of an individual to wear protective headgear required under subsection (b) of this section may not:

(i) Be considered evidence of negligence;

(ii) Be considered evidence of contributory negligence;

(iii) Limit liability of a party or an insurer; or

(iv) Diminish recovery for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or operation of a moped or motor scooter.